The problem was this man was an imperialist. Saying he was a great hero of freedom is the propaganda aspect of this. Understand that history has multiple perspectives and some lack credibility.
Yes, he was. Roosevelt was concerned about growing European power in Latin America and Caribbean. The construction of the Panama Canal was a geopolitical maneuver to increase US power in both the Atlantic and Pacific. He always believed that Latin America and the Caribbean should be under the US sphere of influence.His policies were imperialistic.
@87fg he was concerned because Europe Violated a law set in place that Europe was not allowed to expand any further into the Americas which France did during the 1860's.
also the USA NEVER wanted the Caribbean. the USA took it over parts of it during the Revolution and later gave it back. lets not forget powers like the U.K funded tribes to attack the USA.
The Monroe Doctrine was imperialist. The only reason America did not want European powers in the region was because of the economic interests. The US wanted Latin America and the Caribbean to expand its power in the Americas. The Roosevelt Corollary was used for the justification for wars in Latin America and Caribbean. Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua were invaded by the United States. Roosevelt expanded the Monroe Doctrine and made the US an imperial power.
@87fg yes,because Empries buy people's land. or did you forget that 70% of American land is payed for? and it was signed that the Panama Canal would be turned over to Panama, and that any Territory has the right to become it''s own country if it ever wants too. Example. Philippines.. USA so Imperial lol.
Caribbean? what Puerto Rico? kid I'm Puerto Rico and the USA did the right thing by kicking the Spanish out..
The fact of the matter is these actions were an extension of American racism. Paternalism was the attitude in Washington. Emilio Aguinaldo lead a rebellion against US rule in the Philippines, because he understood that they were no different from the Spanish. America saw that Spain's power was weakening and took their colonies for themselves. Economic exploitation was the goal. The resources of these colonies were extracted, while America got most of the benefits.
@87fg Emilio Aguinaldo later sided with the USA dumb shit and the Philippines became a self Governing place. then became a country and the USA help it become a country.
No, that is incorrect. He was captured for his role in the revolt against the United States. Theodore Roosevelt gave him amnesty. Only when Japanese aggresion was in full swing, did the Phillippines achieve independence. The American- Philippines War (1899-1902) proved that Filipinos were never supportive of US occupation. I can see history is not your strong suit. It was Emilio Aquinaldo and Manuel L.Quezon that developed the Phillipines into an independent country, not America.
The US later sided with Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator of the Phillipines from 1965 to 1989. Your point is not relevant. Aguinaldo lost the battle against the US and had to use another method. The US did not help the Phillippines, it subjugated the country. That was clear with the support of the the Marcos dictatorship. The United States has never promoted freedom, only governments that can be manipulated.
@87fg your point? the USA will side with a Dictator before siding with a Commie. the USA sided with Franco of Spain and other such people. and yes the USA has promoted Freedom. South Korea had a Dictator and look at it today a free people they are. at least in Some dictatorships there is a chance for freedom unlike a communist government.
"The US did not help the Phillippines," I know a aunt of mine who would love to slap you for that statement.
The Kirk Patrick Doctrine did little to promote freedom. Autocracy either Communist or Fascist is something that should not be promoted. The United States never pomotes freedom. That was a myth that developed after World War II. America saw the strategic interest in the Phillippines, that's why it was invaded by America during the Theodore Roosevelt administration.
That is not true. The Eurozone is close to America for economic reasons. The Third World for the most part is dominated by the West. The only way neocolonialism survives is through the manipulation of their governments and puppet dictators. The USA did this in Latin America and elsewhere. As a result this created much anger among the populations of the Third World. It only appears as if America is loved by everyone, but US foreign policy prevents this.
@87fg You look like a complete moron blaming all the world's ills on America. All you have is fringe ideas that are so bogus they should be considered conspiracy theories. You clearly lost the debate with dogmeat1950 so let's go on a topic that you're more comfertable with. How bout the "1969 moon landing was a hoax". Wanna talk about that? Did Rammstein's video song "Amerika" prove the moon landing was a hoax? LOL your an idiot.
You lack the intelligence to understand international politics and history. People are culpable for global issues, not one country. Neoconservative foreign policy however has caused many disasters. This is fact; America has engaged in imperialism and wars of aggression. Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan are just a few examples.
@87fg You complain about this "imperialism". If U.S. was so imperialistic then why doesn't the U.S. treat Canada like China treats Mongolia? Hmmm.. ever thought about that one? Of course not. While most earlier empires started off with military force they eventually progressed to take over the country. Your confusing influence and America's overall power with imperialism. That argument is getting old. But the main reason the U.S. isn't imperialitic is BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT COLONIZING THE WORLD DOI
The only reason the US intervenes in other nations is out of business interests. Iraq has immense oil reserves. The invasion had nothing to do with freedom. The Roman Empire was once a republic, but became autocratic as time passed. This is happening to America. Canada could not stand up to America, even if it wanted to. America has control through military bases and economic institutions.
I also see some interesting comments. Many believe that the US isn't imperialist, because it doesnt invade Canada or colonize Africa. In that, there is no contradiction. Today's imperialism is financial imperialism, it's unequal treaties, it's mutually beneficial "coalitions" with dictators.
You see, every president must play the great game, whether a reformer or a neo-con. The difference is the reformer slowly changes the rules of the game, as proven by the fact that colonization is over.
@87fg USA and Phillipinoes fought side by side against Japan. and were happy when the USA came back and finished the job of building/rebuilding their country back and letting have there own country. you really really need to read history.
with USA supports Saudi Arabia it does call for more freedom of it's people. but the USA will not force a ally to change cause that's how you loose a friend. you I'm so happy your not a Diplomat
It's hard to reconcile the fact that Roosevelt appeared for many reasons to be a reformer (the election of 1912 where Roosevelt ran independently and in effect let Wislon win shows that resolve for example) with the fact that he promoted imperialism. I think that more fundamentally, no matter what your personal convictions are, you must do the job. And the job of being a head of state today, unfortunately, includes imperialism. For example, what's your opinion on Frederick the Great?
Old school amusement parks were bad ass
thepete85 1 month ago in playlist US - Teddy Roosevelt (HistCh)
"The American Century"????
An interesting documentary.. but too much propaganda.
TheJapanChannelDcom 1 year ago
Comment removed
St984 1 year ago
@TheJapanChannelDcom Propaganda?!?!? that's how teddy really was lol.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
The problem was this man was an imperialist. Saying he was a great hero of freedom is the propaganda aspect of this. Understand that history has multiple perspectives and some lack credibility.
87fg 1 year ago
@87fg um..no. he was not, think you should read before commenting.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
Yes, he was. Roosevelt was concerned about growing European power in Latin America and Caribbean. The construction of the Panama Canal was a geopolitical maneuver to increase US power in both the Atlantic and Pacific. He always believed that Latin America and the Caribbean should be under the US sphere of influence.His policies were imperialistic.
87fg 1 year ago
@87fg he was concerned because Europe Violated a law set in place that Europe was not allowed to expand any further into the Americas which France did during the 1860's.
also the USA NEVER wanted the Caribbean. the USA took it over parts of it during the Revolution and later gave it back. lets not forget powers like the U.K funded tribes to attack the USA.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
The Monroe Doctrine was imperialist. The only reason America did not want European powers in the region was because of the economic interests. The US wanted Latin America and the Caribbean to expand its power in the Americas. The Roosevelt Corollary was used for the justification for wars in Latin America and Caribbean. Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua were invaded by the United States. Roosevelt expanded the Monroe Doctrine and made the US an imperial power.
87fg 1 year ago
@87fg yes,because Empries buy people's land. or did you forget that 70% of American land is payed for? and it was signed that the Panama Canal would be turned over to Panama, and that any Territory has the right to become it''s own country if it ever wants too. Example. Philippines.. USA so Imperial lol.
Caribbean? what Puerto Rico? kid I'm Puerto Rico and the USA did the right thing by kicking the Spanish out..
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
The fact of the matter is these actions were an extension of American racism. Paternalism was the attitude in Washington. Emilio Aguinaldo lead a rebellion against US rule in the Philippines, because he understood that they were no different from the Spanish. America saw that Spain's power was weakening and took their colonies for themselves. Economic exploitation was the goal. The resources of these colonies were extracted, while America got most of the benefits.
87fg 1 year ago
@87fg Emilio Aguinaldo later sided with the USA dumb shit and the Philippines became a self Governing place. then became a country and the USA help it become a country.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
No, that is incorrect. He was captured for his role in the revolt against the United States. Theodore Roosevelt gave him amnesty. Only when Japanese aggresion was in full swing, did the Phillippines achieve independence. The American- Philippines War (1899-1902) proved that Filipinos were never supportive of US occupation. I can see history is not your strong suit. It was Emilio Aquinaldo and Manuel L.Quezon that developed the Phillipines into an independent country, not America.
87fg 1 year ago
*are the ones
87fg 1 year ago
The US later sided with Ferdinand Marcos, the dictator of the Phillipines from 1965 to 1989. Your point is not relevant. Aguinaldo lost the battle against the US and had to use another method. The US did not help the Phillippines, it subjugated the country. That was clear with the support of the the Marcos dictatorship. The United States has never promoted freedom, only governments that can be manipulated.
87fg 1 year ago
@87fg your point? the USA will side with a Dictator before siding with a Commie. the USA sided with Franco of Spain and other such people. and yes the USA has promoted Freedom. South Korea had a Dictator and look at it today a free people they are. at least in Some dictatorships there is a chance for freedom unlike a communist government.
"The US did not help the Phillippines," I know a aunt of mine who would love to slap you for that statement.
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
The Kirk Patrick Doctrine did little to promote freedom. Autocracy either Communist or Fascist is something that should not be promoted. The United States never pomotes freedom. That was a myth that developed after World War II. America saw the strategic interest in the Phillippines, that's why it was invaded by America during the Theodore Roosevelt administration.
87fg 1 year ago
@87fg ya.. you have no clue what your talking about. you do know the USA has more allies then anyone else right?
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
That is not true. The Eurozone is close to America for economic reasons. The Third World for the most part is dominated by the West. The only way neocolonialism survives is through the manipulation of their governments and puppet dictators. The USA did this in Latin America and elsewhere. As a result this created much anger among the populations of the Third World. It only appears as if America is loved by everyone, but US foreign policy prevents this.
87fg 1 year ago
@87fg You look like a complete moron blaming all the world's ills on America. All you have is fringe ideas that are so bogus they should be considered conspiracy theories. You clearly lost the debate with dogmeat1950 so let's go on a topic that you're more comfertable with. How bout the "1969 moon landing was a hoax". Wanna talk about that? Did Rammstein's video song "Amerika" prove the moon landing was a hoax? LOL your an idiot.
cryliberalscry 10 months ago
You lack the intelligence to understand international politics and history. People are culpable for global issues, not one country. Neoconservative foreign policy however has caused many disasters. This is fact; America has engaged in imperialism and wars of aggression. Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan are just a few examples.
87fg 10 months ago
@87fg You complain about this "imperialism". If U.S. was so imperialistic then why doesn't the U.S. treat Canada like China treats Mongolia? Hmmm.. ever thought about that one? Of course not. While most earlier empires started off with military force they eventually progressed to take over the country. Your confusing influence and America's overall power with imperialism. That argument is getting old. But the main reason the U.S. isn't imperialitic is BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT COLONIZING THE WORLD DOI
cryliberalscry 10 months ago
The only reason the US intervenes in other nations is out of business interests. Iraq has immense oil reserves. The invasion had nothing to do with freedom. The Roman Empire was once a republic, but became autocratic as time passed. This is happening to America. Canada could not stand up to America, even if it wanted to. America has control through military bases and economic institutions.
87fg 10 months ago
I also see some interesting comments. Many believe that the US isn't imperialist, because it doesnt invade Canada or colonize Africa. In that, there is no contradiction. Today's imperialism is financial imperialism, it's unequal treaties, it's mutually beneficial "coalitions" with dictators.
You see, every president must play the great game, whether a reformer or a neo-con. The difference is the reformer slowly changes the rules of the game, as proven by the fact that colonization is over.
Renegen1 5 months ago
The era of neocolonialism is alive and real.The US has so many bases that it is colonizing the world.
87fg 5 months ago
@87fg USA and Phillipinoes fought side by side against Japan. and were happy when the USA came back and finished the job of building/rebuilding their country back and letting have there own country. you really really need to read history.
with USA supports Saudi Arabia it does call for more freedom of it's people. but the USA will not force a ally to change cause that's how you loose a friend. you I'm so happy your not a Diplomat
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
We have few friends, because we make enemies. Japan was a colonizer, just like America and should be condemned.
87fg 1 year ago
It's hard to reconcile the fact that Roosevelt appeared for many reasons to be a reformer (the election of 1912 where Roosevelt ran independently and in effect let Wislon win shows that resolve for example) with the fact that he promoted imperialism. I think that more fundamentally, no matter what your personal convictions are, you must do the job. And the job of being a head of state today, unfortunately, includes imperialism. For example, what's your opinion on Frederick the Great?
Renegen1 5 months ago